Re: [Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

... Hello Brian, I m not sure this is very different than what we had been supposing. Generally, I assume, and Stephen Carlson s test assumed that the style of

Message 1 of 24
, Jan 1, 2002

0 Attachment

Brain Wilson writes:

>
> The above is my thought in outline. It is not intended to provide a test
> for documentary hypotheses. It is intended to show that the correlations
> observed by Dave Gentile can be easily accounted for on the basis of the
> assumption that if different types of material show a significant
> positive correlation, this is consistent with the same synoptist having
> been the redactor, whereas if two different types show a significant
> negative correlation, this is consistent with different synoptists
> having been the redactors.
>
> Advocates of the Farrer Hypothesis may be relieved to know that the
> above approach accounts well for the correlation 202/112 being positive.
> Equally, advocates of the 2DH may rejoice that 202/200 being positive is
> found to be easily accounted for on the hypothesis being considered
> here. In the case of my Logia Translation Hypothesis, it is seen that
> 202/122 being negative is also easily accounted for on the above
> hypothesis.
>
> Comments on the above would be welcome. Where have I gone wrong?
>

Hello Brian,

I'm not sure this is very different than what we had been supposing.
Generally, I assume, and Stephen Carlson's test assumed that the style of
anyone that could have been the author of a category might have their style
reflected there. For example, on the 2ST 102 might look like Luke the
redactor, and might look like Q the author.

What I think you are adding here is the possibility that a redactor selects
words from his source that are pleasing to him. For example in 200-202, we
could claim that 200 is written by Matthew, and 202 contains words that
Matthew found in his source that were pleasing to Matthew. Therefore both
might look like "Matthew". This is a concern that Mark Goodacre had.

How this was addressed at the time was to observe that "102+202" as one
category, correlated significantly with 200. Said differently, sonndergut
Matthew correlates significantly with the double tradition exactly as it is
found in Luke. Redactional action can not explain this.

Some further thoughts on my suggested new approach to the correlations tables. I think I can reduce everything to the following two statements -- (Statement 1)

Message 2 of 24
, Jan 1, 2002

0 Attachment

Some further thoughts on my suggested new approach to the correlations
tables. I think I can reduce everything to the following two statements
--

(Statement 1) A correlation shows a significant positive only if both of
its categories include words from the same gospel. (The number 2 is
shown in the same position in both, for example 211/210). This is
accounted for by supposing that the material of the two categories has
been redacted by the same synoptist. The 18 significant positives
observed so far are --
222/220, 221/211, 221/121, 221/021, 220/120, 220/022,
220/020, 211/210, 202/201, 202/200, 202/102, 201/200,
121/120, 121/021, 120/021, 120/020, 112/012, 112/002

(Statement 2) A correlation shows a significant negative only if either
(1) the two categories do not include the same gospel (for example,
120/112), or (2) one category includes all three synoptists, and the
other only Luke, or (3) one category includes Matthew and Mark but not
Luke, and the other includes Mark and Luke but not Matthew.

Case (1) is accounted for by supposing that two different styles have
been imposed by two synoptists redacting differently, and case (2) by
supposing that the wording present in all three synoptists would be in
words significantly different from Luke's style since they would be
words common to the styles of all three and therefore lack many of the
distinguishing words in Luke, whereas the words in Luke only would have
retained the words of Luke's style, this having the same effect as one
category having been redacted by one synoptist, and the other having
been redacted by another, and case (3) by supposing that the difference
between the words of each category would have been the difference
between the style of Matthew and the style of Mark, and that this would
have had the same effect as one synoptist having redacted one category
of material, and another synoptist having redacted the other.

All significant positives and all significant negatives are therefore
explained on the basis of the assumption of the new "redaction
approach".

Just a reminder of what that approach is. It assumes that if two
different categories of material show a significant positive
correlation, then this is consistent with the same synoptist having
redacted the material concerned, and that if two different categories
show a significant negative correlation, then this is consistent with
different synoptists having redacted.

What were difficult significant correlations on the old approach, are
accounted for easily on the new. For instance 112/202 is consistent with
a significant positive because both categories include words from Luke.
The observed significant positive 202/200 is accounted for as the result
of the same synoptist, Matthew, having redacted the material of both
categories. The same applies to the infamous 221/211. Moreover, 202/122
being observed to be negative belongs to case (3), since one category
includes Matthew and Mark but not Luke, and the other includes Mark and
Luke but not Matthew.

Brian Wilson writes: ======== For instance 112/202 is consistent with a significant positive because both categories include words from Luke. The observed

Message 3 of 24
, Jan 1, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson writes:

========
For instance 112/202 is consistent with
a significant positive because both categories include words from Luke.
The observed significant positive 202/200 is accounted for as the result
of the same synoptist, Matthew, having redacted the material of both
categories.

=======

Do you mean 102/202 here? That's the problem one for the FH.

The idea works fine, if we are only looking at the pairs. But it does not
explain the whole picture.

Again the mutli-variate overview methods point to a specific set of 4
documents. But, in terms of the correlations, 200 correlating with "102+202"
can not be explained by similar redaction. One is pure Matthew, the other
the exact text of the double tradition in Luke.

Similarly, 102 correlating with "202+201" can not be explained by similar
redaction.
One is the exact text of the double tradition in Matthew, the other is words
found only in Luke.

Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Dave Gentile replied -- ... Dave. If it were not radically different from what we have been supposing, the new approach would not

Message 4 of 24
, Jan 2, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson wrote --

>
>The correlations observed by Dave Gentile can be easily accounted for
>on the assumption that if different types of material show a
>significant positive correlation, this is consistent with the same
>synoptist having been the redactor, whereas if two different types show
>a significant negative correlation, this is consistent with different
>synoptists having been the redactors.
>

Dave Gentile replied --

>
>I'm not sure this is very different than what we had been supposing.
>

Dave.
If it were not radically different from what we have been
supposing, the new approach would not come up with different views of
the Farrer Hypothesis, the Two Document Hypothesis, and so on. On the
new approach, what were disastrous problems for these hypotheses have
been shown to disappear.

>
>Generally, I assume, and Stephen Carlson's test assumed, that the style
>of anyone that could have been the author of a category might have
>their style reflected there. For example, on the 2ST 102 might look
>like Luke the redactor, and might look like Q the author.
>

Assuming Q ever existed, and assuming it had an author, and assuming
that the author wrote in a style that can be distinguished from other
writers, then it is still perfectly possible that the style has been
overlaid in Luke by the style of the synoptist Luke, and similarly by
the style of Matthew in Matthew by the synoptist Matthew. Indeed,
looking at articles written on "Q" by advocates of the 2DH in recent
years, I would think this is highly likely. Is it not much safer, and
wiser, to assume that what we have are synoptic gospels in which each
synoptist may well have written in his own style, very probably thereby
destroying the effects of the styles of the authors of source materials?

Everything you have written on this topic is based on the assumption
that --

>
>"If two different types of material (say 121 and 120), tend to prefer
>the same words, there is good chance they had the same author."
>

Suppose this assumption is not true. Then we have a radically new
situation. It is a whole new ball game, as different as base-ball from
cricket.

My assumption is that if two different types of material (say 121 and
120), tend to prefer the same words, there is a good chance that they
were redacted by the same synoptist. Conversely, if two different types
of material (say 121 and 202) tend to prefer different words, there is a
good chance that they were redacted by different synoptists. I suggest
that this is a much safer and much wiser starting assumption. We should
try it and see whether it works.

>
>What I think you are adding here is the possibility that a redactor
>selects words from his source that are pleasing to him. For example in
>200-202, we could claim that 200 is written by Matthew, and 202
>contains words that Matthew found in his source that were pleasing to
>Matthew. Therefore both might look like "Matthew". This is a concern
>that Mark Goodacre had.
>

I am sorry, Dave, but I am not adding anything to your approach. I am
saying that we need a totally new start. There really is no necessity to
begin where you do. I am suggesting that it would be much wiser to go
back to the drawing-board and start again by assuming that the
correlation results may be accounted for easily on the assumption that
each synoptist had a distinctive way of redacting all his source
materials, and that this may well account easily for the observed
correlations.

On this view, "the same words" indicate the same synoptist as redactor,
and "different words" indicate different synoptists having redacted. If
your assumption is correct, then my approach should simply grind to a
halt if it is tried. It should fail to account easily for at least some
of the significant correlations. In fact, however, it easily accounts
for every single one of them, including those which have provided so
much difficulty under your approach. You write reams on "What IS going
on with 221 and 211?" On my approach this requires only one sentence --
that the correlation 221-211 is a significant positive because each type
of material has been redacted by the same synoptist, Matthew. On my
approach, every significant positive correlation can be explained on the
assumption that the two types of material concerned have been redacted
by the same synoptist. There are no exceptions.

>
>For example in 200-202, we could claim that 200 is written by Matthew,
>and 202 contains words that Matthew found in his source that were
>pleasing to Matthew. Therefore both might look like "Matthew". This is
>a concern that Mark Goodacre had.
>

Mark Goodacre's concern was basically the same as mine, I would suggest.
It was to question the basic assumption of your approach that "different
words" are the result of different authors of sources. In fact the
significant positive observed between 200 and 202 is, again, very easy
to explain on the new approach as the result of the same author,
Matthew, having correlated the material of both types.

>
>How this was addressed at the time was to observe that "102+202" as one
>category, correlated significantly with 200. Said differently,
>Sonndergut Matthew correlates significantly with the double tradition
>exactly as it is found in Luke.
>

If 200-202 had not been a significant positive, and if 200 and "102+202"
had produced a significant positive, then your argument might be valid.
In fact, however, 200-202 is observed to be a significant positive, so
it seems to me that your argument collapses. In any case, "the double
tradition exactly as it is found in Luke" is very unlikely indeed to be
exactly the wording of whatever source Luke is supposed to have used
here. In my view, it is very likely indeed that the 102 material has all
been overlaid with the style of Luke himself.

I have shown in my previous posting that every significant positive and
every significant negative correlation observed can be easily accounted
for by the hypothesis that "the same words" are the result of redaction
by one synoptist, and that "different words" are the result of redaction
by more than one synoptist. I would suggest that this is a very unlikely
result if the alternative assumption is true -- that similarities of
wording point to "the same author" of source material, and that
differences of wording point to different authors of sources.

Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Dave Gentile replied -- ... Dave, Yes. 112/202 is a typo for 102/202. It is 102/202 that is given in the accompanying list of

Message 5 of 24
, Jan 2, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson wrote --

>
>For instance 112/202 is consistent with a significant positive because
>both categories include words from Luke. The observed significant
>positive 202/200 is accounted for as the result of the same synoptist,
>Matthew, having redacted the material of both categories.
>

Dave Gentile replied --

>
>Do you mean 102/202 here?
>

Dave,
Yes. 112/202 is a typo for 102/202. It is 102/202 that is given in
the accompanying list of significant positives in the posting.

>
>That's the problem one for the FH.
>

It *was* the problem one for the FH. It no longer is, on my approach.

>
>The idea works fine, if we are only looking at the pairs.
>

Why does it work fine? If your assumption is true, it should grind to a
halt, surely? If we **totally** ignore your assumption, and think only
in terms of the assumption that the "same words" are the result of the
same synoptist having redacted, and "different words" are the result of
different synoptists having redacted, then this accounts easily for all
the significant correlations. And it saves the Farrer Hypothesis and the
Two Document Hypothesis from disgrace under your approach. How can my
approach work in this way if your approach is valid?

>
>But it does not explain the whole picture. Again the mutli-variate
>overview methods point to a specific set of 4 documents.
>

Only if one assumes that they are indicating styles of source documents,
and not styles resulting from redaction by each synoptist. I am writing
a separate posting on your interpretation of the results of "principle
component analysis", in order to do it justice. If we begin with the
assumption of the new approach, the principle component analysis results
can be interpreted very differently, and easily.

>
>But, in terms of the correlations, 200 correlating with "102+202" can
>not be explained by similar redaction. One is pure Matthew, the other
>the exact text of the double tradition in Luke.
>

We seem to be "crossing" in the post. In my previous posting I showed
that these correlations can easily be accounted by my approach. My
reasoning is that 200 and 202 are observed to be a significant positive
anyway, explained by them being redacted by only one synoptist, Matthew.
And so on.

>
>Similarly, 102 correlating with "202+201" can not be explained by
>similar redaction. One is the exact text of the double tradition in
>Matthew, the other is words found only in Luke.
>

I think your arguments are weak in your appeal to these combined
categories. In fact 202-102 is a significant positive, and 201-102 is a
(very) insignificant positive. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that
(202+201)-202 is a significant positive also. Your argument would have
been valid if 202-102 had not been a significant positive but
(202+201)/202 had been significant positive. But 202-102 is observed
significant positive any way. So your argument fails. Moreover, the idea
that "202+201" gives "the exact text of the double tradition in Matthew"
is true by definition, of course , but I would suggest it is very
unlikely indeed that it gives the exact text of any source that Matthew
may have used. Even the advocates of the Two Document Hypothesis would
agree that Matthew has impressed his style on the wording of the wording
of "Q", on the assumption that it existed.

Hello Brian, I apologies for only responding to a small parts of your posts. I m short on time at the moment. Ideally, I d like to put off most debate until

Message 6 of 24
, Jan 2, 2002

0 Attachment

Hello Brian,

I apologies for only responding to a small parts of your posts. I'm
short on time at the moment. Ideally, I'd like to put off most debate until
after the write up is complete. Hopefully that will lay out all points, and
put everyone at the same starting point for discussion.

I think this is the main point:

Brian:

If 200-202 had not been a significant positive, and if 200 and "102+202"
had produced a significant positive, then your argument might be valid.
In fact, however, 200-202 is observed to be a significant positive, so
it seems to me that your argument collapses. In any case, "the double
tradition exactly as it is found in Luke" is very unlikely indeed to be
exactly the wording of whatever source Luke is supposed to have used
here. In my view, it is very likely indeed that the 102 material has all
been overlaid with the style of Luke himself.

Brian:

I think your arguments are weak in your appeal to these combined
categories. In fact 202-102 is a significant positive, and 201-102 is a
(very) insignificant positive. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that
(202+201)-202 is a significant positive also. Your argument would have
been valid if 202-102 had not been a significant positive but
(202+201)/202 had been significant positive. But 202-102 is observed
significant positive any way. So your argument fails. Moreover, the idea
that "202+201" gives "the exact text of the double tradition in Matthew"
is true by definition, of course , but I would suggest it is very
unlikely indeed that it gives the exact text of any source that Matthew
may have used. Even the advocates of the Two Document Hypothesis would
agree that Matthew has impressed his style on the wording of the wording
of "Q", on the assumption that it existed.

Dave:

I don't doubt that a redactor can effect the material. I just argue that if
the word was written by the source, and retained by a redactor it reflects
the style of the source more clearly than the redactor. You are claiming
only the redactor has any effect.

But here is the key point:

Relative to the frequency in the synoptics as a whole,
the frequency of common Greek words in Sonndergut Matthew significantly
correlates with the frequency of common Greek words found in the double
tradition of Luke.
We don't even need to talk about any other results, techniques, or HBB
categories.

Other than a common source, what could explain this?

I have no doubt that Matthew and/or Luke add their own influences, but they
correlate anyway. Why?

Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, Because, by definition of double tradition , the words of the double tradition in Luke are identical with the words of the

Message 7 of 24
, Jan 2, 2002

0 Attachment

Dave Gentile wrote --

>
>But here is the key point:
>Relative to the frequency in the synoptics as a whole, the frequency of
>common Greek words in Sonndergut Matthew significantly correlates with
>the frequency of common Greek words found in the double tradition of
>Luke. We don't even need to talk about any other results, techniques,
>or HBB categories. Other than a common source, what could explain this?
>I have no doubt that Matthew and/or Luke add their own influences, but
>they correlate anyway. Why?
>

Dave,
Because, by definition of "double tradition", the words of the
double tradition in Luke are identical with the words of the double
tradition in Matthew. That is what "202" means. The first "2" and the
second "2" refer to exactly the same words. The significant positive
correlation 202/200 is therefore not only between the words of the
double tradition in Luke and the words of Sondergut Matthew, but also
between the words of **Matthew** in the double tradition and the words
of **Matthew** in Sondergut Matthew. So we have the same synoptist
redacting. And so we can account for the significant positive as the
result of the same synoptist having redacted the same material. We have
no need whatsoever to appeal to any hypothesis that the same source, or
different sources, have been used. The significant positive correlation
observed can be explained entirely on the basis of the hypothesis that
the "same words" indicate redaction by one synoptist, and "different
words" indicate that different synoptists have redacted.

Hello Brian, By the double tradition in Luke I mean HBB 102+202 that is to say the full text of Luke in these sections. These marco categories provide a

Message 8 of 24
, Jan 2, 2002

0 Attachment

Hello Brian,

By the "double tradition" in Luke I mean HBB 102+202
that is to say the full text of Luke in these sections.
These marco categories provide a clearer look at effects we want to single
out than individual categories.
This correlates with sonedergut Matthew.

There has not been anything presented by anyone,
that would account for this other than a common source style showing in
both.

Again, forget HBB categories, these full sections of Luke, "the double
tradition" in Luke,
not selected words of it that happen to agree with Mt,
correlates significantly with sondergut Matthew.
We have full pieces of text from Luke, correlating with different full
pieces of text in Matthew. Why?

Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, Yes. So do I. ... I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously, your arguments seem to me to be

Message 9 of 24
, Jan 3, 2002

0 Attachment

Dave Gentile wrote --

>
>By the "double tradition" in Luke I mean HBB 102+202 that is to say the
>full text of Luke in these sections.
>

Dave,
Yes. So do I.

>
>These macro categories provide a clearer look at effects we want to
>single out than individual categories.
>

I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously,
your arguments seem to me to be confused when you appeal to these macro-
categories. So far you have not shown that they take us any further than
considering correlations of non-macro categories.

>
>This correlates with sondergut Matthew.
>

202-200 is an observed significant positive, and, as I have shown, all
observed significant positives can be easily accounted for by the new
approach. Moreover 102-200 is observed to be a weak positive
correlation. Since (102 + 202)-200 is formed by combining 102-200 and
202-200, it is therefore hardly surprising that (102 + 202)-200 is also
a positive correlation, is it? Your argument therefore collapses at this
point. If neither 102-200 nor 202-200 had been an observed significant
positive, and if you had found that the "macro-category" was a
significant positive, then your argument would have had some force. As
it is, what is observed can be easily accounted for by the new approach,
that is, by supposing that if different types of material show a
significant positive correlation, this is consistent with the same
synoptist having been the redactor, whereas if two different types show
a significant negative correlation, this is consistent with different
synoptists having been the redactors. We therefore have no need
whatsoever to appeal to any hypothesis concerning a common source to
account for (102 + 202)-200 being a positive correlation.

>
>There has not been anything presented by anyone, that would account for
>this other than a common source style showing in both.
>

I have just done so above. There is simply no need to appeal to any
hypothesis of a the style of a common source to account for the observed
correlations.

>
>Again, forget HBB categories, these full sections of Luke, "the double
>tradition" in Luke, not selected words of it that happen to agree with
>Mt, correlates significantly with sondergut Matthew. We have full
>pieces of text from Luke, correlating with different full pieces of
>text in Matthew. Why?
>

Because the correlation which you describe is a combination of the two
correlations considered above, one between Matthew and sondergut
Matthew, and the other between Matthew and the double tradition in
Matthew, and because the words of the double tradition in Matthew are
exactly the same as the words of the double tradition in Luke by
definition of "double tradition". There is no need for any appeal to a
hypothesis of a positive correlation being the result of the use of a
common source. Even if Matthew completely destroys the style of his
source material, and Luke also, the observed correlations can easily be
explained on the new approach.

... I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously, your arguments seem to me to be confused when you appeal to these macro- categories.

Message 10 of 24
, Jan 3, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson writes:

>
>These macro categories provide a clearer look at effects we want to
>single out than individual categories.
>

I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously,
your arguments seem to me to be confused when you appeal to these macro-
categories. So far you have not shown that they take us any further than
considering correlations of non-macro categories.

Hello Brian,

In some cases there are two clear, and reasonable explanations for a
correlation in an individual category, and only one of those is a possible
explanation for the macro-category. Thus the macro-category isolates the
one effect better.

It is a superior experimental design, if you will.

Brian:

202-200 is an observed significant positive, and, as I have shown, all
observed significant positives can be easily accounted for by the new
approach. Moreover 102-200 is observed to be a weak positive
correlation. Since (102 + 202)-200 is formed by combining 102-200 and
202-200, it is therefore hardly surprising that (102 + 202)-200 is also
a positive correlation, is it?

Dave: No, its not surprising, given the two subcategories. But your idea
would predict 102-200 should be negative.
102 and 202 are the artificially separated categories. 102 is some words in
passages of Luke, 201 is the rest of the words. 102+202 is the whole
passage, it is not an artificial combination.

There has been no explanation yet proposed that could explain this.
If you believe your method then can please explain how, in terms of full
sections of Matthew agreeing with different full sections of Luke, without
them reflecting the style of a common source.

Brian:

Because the correlation which you describe is a combination of the two
correlations considered above, one between Matthew and sondergut
Matthew, and the other between Matthew and the double tradition in
Matthew, and because the words of the double tradition in Matthew are
exactly the same as the words of the double tradition in Luke by
definition of "double tradition". There is no need for any appeal to a
hypothesis of a positive correlation being the result of the use of a
common source. Even if Matthew completely destroys the style of his
source material, and Luke also, the observed correlations can easily be
explained on the new approach.

Dave:

That is not correct. I am comparing Matthew to Luke, plain and simple. I am
not comparing Matthew's words to Matthew's words in and way. On the LTH,
for example. The words in 102+202 are either Luke's words, or LT words. 200
is either Matthew's words, or LT's words. If they completely destroy any
source evidence, as you claim, then one is all Luke, the other all Matthew.
There is no explanation for a significant positive.

>
>Again, forget HBB categories, these are full sections of Luke, "the
>double tradition" in Luke, not selected words of it that happen to
>agree with Mt, correlates significantly with sondergut Matthew.
>We have full pieces of text from Luke, correlating with different full
>pieces of text in Matthew. Why?
>

Brian Wilson replied --

>
>202-200 is an observed significant positive, and, as I have shown, all
>observed significant positives can be easily accounted for by the new
>approach. Moreover 102-200 is observed to be a weak positive
>correlation. Since (102 + 202)-200 is formed by combining 102-200 and
>202-200, it is therefore hardly surprising that (102 + 202)-200 is also
>a positive correlation, is it?
>

Dave Gentile answered --

>
>No, its not surprising, given the two subcategories. But your idea
>would predict 102-200 should be negative.
>

Absolutely not. My hypothesis does no such thing. My hypothesis is that
IF a significant positive or significant is observed, THEN this can
easily be accounted for by supposing the same synoptist has redacted the
categories, and that IF a significant negative is observed, THEN this
can be easily accounted for by supposing that different synoptists have
redacted the material. It is a gross mis-representation of my hypothesis
to overlook the conditional "IF" here. I wrote in my statement of the
hypothesis --

>
>The approach I am suggesting here is based on a different assumption --
>that if two different types of material show a significant positive
>correlation, then this is consistent with **the same synoptist having
>redacted** the material concerned, and that if two different types show
>a significant negative correlation, then this is consistent with
>**different synoptists having redacted**.
>

Note the phrase "is consistent with". There is no suggestion that any
correlation must necessarily be significant or not significant, positive
or negative. There could be any number of reasons why an observed
correlation is neither significant positive nor significant negative, on
my approach. In the case of 102/200 being mildly positive, this might,
for instance, be the consequence of Luke having supplied a significant
proportion of the category 102 words in the double tradition passages in
Luke. These would be in Luke's style, not Matthew's, and hence the
resulting correlation will be a weaker, rather than a significant,
positive. Another possibility is that a weaker correlation has been
produced as a result of Matthew omitting words that Luke retained,
thereby weakening the correlation between Matthew's words in the double
tradition, and Matthew's 202 words.

>
>102 and 202 are the artificially separated categories. 102 is some
>words in passages of Luke, 201 [202?] is the rest of the words. 102+202
>is the whole passage, it is not an artificial combination.
>

I think you are confused here. If 102 and 202 are artificially
separated, then we should throw away our HHB Concordance, surely. You
seem to be suggesting that a passage with category 102 words is only in
Luke. This is not true, is it? If the passage were not in Matthew also,
then the words would have to be categorized as 002, not 102. The
passages containing 102 and 202 are, by definition, necessarily all in
Matthew as well as in Luke. Also, it is not the case that the passages
in Luke contain only 102 and 202 words. Luke redacts his source
material, and part of this redaction was frequently to supply phrases or
whole sentences of his own within passages of material. It would seem
that Luke frequently contains the odd phrase or sentence of his own in a
double tradition passage. The words of these sentences or phrases are
shown as 002 in the HHB Concordance. So passages in the double tradition
in Luke are frequently 202, 102 and 002 material, just as passages in
the double tradition in Matthew are frequently 202, 201 and 002
material. It is not true, therefore, that a double tradition passage in
Luke must be entirely 102 + 202.

>
>I am comparing Matthew to Luke, plain and simple. I am not comparing
>Matthew's words to Matthew's words in any way.
>

I understand you to mean that correlating the (102 + 202) words with the
200 words does not entail comparing Matthew's words with Matthew's
words. For this to be true, however, none of the 202 words in (102 +
202) can be Matthew's words. Yet, by definition of 202, all 202 words
are the same words in Matthew and Luke, and therefore are Matthew's
words. On some documentary hypotheses, (for instance the Farrer
Hypothesis) Luke actually took these words from Matthew! I do not
understand why you think that 202 words in Luke are not 202 words in
Matthew. If they are, then you are comparing a combination of non-
Matthean and Matthean words also in Luke, with words in Matthew only.

>
>On the LTH, for example, the words in 102+202 are either Luke's words,
>or LT words.
>

It seems to me that you are still confused. They are either Luke's words
or Matthew's words or LT words. 202 words are necessarily in Matthew, by
definition of "202". Every single 202 word was in Matthew, according to
the LTH.

>
>200 is either Matthew's words, or LT's words.
>

Agreed.

>
>If they completely destroy any source evidence, as you claim
>

I do not make such a claim. It is possible that either has done so,
particularly Luke, but it is not necessarily the case. It is a
possibility that is not ruled out by my approach. It is neither safe nor
wise to assume that no synoptist has redacted his material sufficiently
heavily to remove the style of the writer of any source he used. It is
a very real possibility that Luke and Matthew have so heavily redacted
their source material, that it is not possible to discern the style of
any source they had in common. J. S. Hawkins wrote, "a renewed
examination has failed to produce any expressions which I could
definitely label as characteristic of Q" ("Horae Synopticae", p.113).
Moreover, the recent article in the "Expository Times" by Dr Cyril Rodd,
a staunch advocate of the 2DH, finds that it is impossible to determine
the extent of Q. In this case, it is impossible to determine the style
of Q, assuming that it existed. On the 2DH, Mark was the common source
of Mt and Lk. I would suggest that if Mark had been lost, then, assuming
we knew which passages Mt and Lk had obtained from "lost" Mark, it would
not be possible to discern "lost" Mark's style. The point is that
clearly the HHBC categories can be used to examine the style of the
individual synoptist, but there is serious doubt that they can sensibly
be used to identify the styles of any hypothetical source any synoptist
may have used.

>
> - then one is all Luke, the other all Matthew.
>

This may be the truth and nothing but the truth, but it is not the whole
truth, is it? The 102 words are Luke, the 202 words are both Matthew and
Luke, and the 200 words are Matthew. Also, there are some 002 words in
Lukan double tradition passages, and some 200 words in Matthean double
tradition passages.

>
>There is no explanation for a significant positive.
>

I have already given an explanation on my approach of why the words of
202 Matthew and Luke, together with the category 102 words of Luke, have
a significant positive correlation with the category 200 words in
Matthew (see above). My approach easily accounts for 202-200 being a
significant positive correlation. It is easily shown to be consistent
with 102-202 being a weak positive correlation. If (102 + 202)-200 is a
significant positive, then, on the new approach, this is the consequence
of 202-200 being significant positive and 102-200 being weakly positive,
these two correlations combining to give a significant positive for (102
+ 202)-200.

The basic assumption of my approach is that if different types of
material show a significant positive correlation, then this is
consistent with the same synoptist having been the redactor, whereas if
two different types show a significant negative correlation, this is
consistent with different synoptists having been the redactors. On this
view, we have no need to appeal to any hypothesis concerning a common
source to account for any of the observed significant positive or
significant negative HHBC correlations. One reason for holding this
approach is that I think it is unsafe and unwise to assume that no
synoptist has redacted the style of his source material sufficiently to
destroy any evidence of the style of any hypothetical source he may have
used. In my view, if a synoptic documentary hypothesis is first assumed,
then the HHBC correlations are an excellent tool for investigating the
style of each synoptist, but probably useless for testing synoptic
documentary hypotheses.

Hello Brian, Your reasoning does not make logical sense to me. Let s take a hypothesis where 202 was not written by Matthew, say LTH or 2ST. The only way

Message 12 of 24
, Jan 4, 2002

0 Attachment

Hello Brian,

Your reasoning does not make logical sense to me.
Let's take a hypothesis where 202 was not written by Matthew, say LTH or
2ST.
The only way Matthew can "imprint his style" on 202 is by selecting words.
Matthew can not have authored any of 202, but by favoring some words over
others, he
could leave his mark. In that case 102 would contain words Matthew
disfavored, and some Luke additions.
By adding 102+202 together, there is no possible means for Matthew to
imprint a style on the joint category.
Any hint of Matthew's favoritism is obliterated by including both
categories.
The joint category contains source words (Matthew favored or not), and Luke
words, but there is no way for Matthew's favoritism of words to show up
here.

... This statement is undeniably true, because it s been constructed that way. All current significant negatives meet one of the three conditions described

Message 13 of 24
, Jan 5, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson wrote:

> (Statement 2) A correlation shows a significant negative only if either
> (1) the two categories do not include the same gospel (for example,
> 120/112), or (2) one category includes all three synoptists, and the
> other only Luke, or (3) one category includes Matthew and Mark but not
> Luke, and the other includes Mark and Luke but not Matthew.

This statement is undeniably true, because it's been constructed that way.
All current significant negatives meet one of the three conditions described
here. However, there are many other pairings of two categories that meet
one of these conditions that do not have negative results, so Statement (2)
cannot be used to predict any results (It's like saying that all owls are
birds. A true statement, but it doesn't help determine whether mice or
salmon are birds). However, Brian then explains the 3 cases above as
follows:

> Case (1) is accounted for by supposing that two different styles have
> been imposed by two synoptists redacting differently, and case (2) by
> supposing that the wording present in all three synoptists would be in
> words significantly different from Luke's style since they would be
> words common to the styles of all three and therefore lack many of the
> distinguishing words in Luke, whereas the words in Luke only would have
> retained the words of Luke's style, this having the same effect as one
> category having been redacted by one synoptist, and the other having
> been redacted by another, and case (3) by supposing that the difference
> between the words of each category would have been the difference
> between the style of Matthew and the style of Mark, and that this would
> have had the same effect as one synoptist having redacted one category
> of material, and another synoptist having redacted the other.

I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists. So, taking just case (2)
for now I would expect to see the same effect for each of Matthew and Mark
as well. In addition, based on just the reasoning given above I would also
expect to see more negative Lukan categories than are currently found. For
case (2) I would expect to see all the following being negative:

In other words only 2 cases out of 12 possible categories actually come up
significantly negative at the moment. Even if we restrict ourselves to just
Luke, only 2 out of the 4 cases matching Brian's description are negative.
So, before case (2) can be seriously evaluated I think Brian needs to
explain:

1 Why 222/102 and 222/012 do not behave like 222/112 and 222/002;
2 Why case (2) can be applied to Luke but NOT to Matthew or Mark.

Finally, the same considerations also apply to Brian's case (3), and so we
also need an explanation of why case (3) should not be applied to all
equivalent pairings of the synoptists.

Without these explanations I find Brian's hypothesis full of holes. It is
incapable of being falsified currently because it has been defined
specifically to match just the current set of significant positive and
negative results, and makes NO predications whatsoever regarding results
that we are still awaiting. For example, if Brian expanded case (1) above
to state that ALL correlations between two categories that do not include
the same gospel will be negative when all the results are in then that would
be a big step forward. However, at present Brian's approach has been
constructed so loosely as to be able to accommodate ANY values in the
results that currently have low confidence. For the approach to be
considered seriously I think that these holes need to be plugged.

... Brian If 200 and 202 are alike because both have been redacted by Matthew, then according to your approach 201 and 202 are alike for exactly the same

Message 14 of 24
, Jan 5, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson wrote:

> On this view, "the same words" indicate the same synoptist as redactor,
> and "different words" indicate different synoptists having redacted. If
> your assumption is correct, then my approach should simply grind to a
> halt if it is tried. It should fail to account easily for at least some
> of the significant correlations. In fact, however, it easily accounts
> for every single one of them, including those which have provided so
> much difficulty under your approach. You write reams on "What IS going
> on with 221 and 211?" On my approach this requires only one sentence --
> that the correlation 221-211 is a significant positive because each type
> of material has been redacted by the same synoptist, Matthew. On my
> approach, every significant positive correlation can be explained on the
> assumption that the two types of material concerned have been redacted
> by the same synoptist. There are no exceptions.
> >
> >For example in 200-202, we could claim that 200 is written by Matthew,
> >and 202 contains words that Matthew found in his source that were
> >pleasing to Matthew. Therefore both might look like "Matthew". This is
> >a concern that Mark Goodacre had.
> >
> Mark Goodacre's concern was basically the same as mine, I would suggest.
> It was to question the basic assumption of your approach that "different
> words" are the result of different authors of sources. In fact the
> significant positive observed between 200 and 202 is, again, very easy
> to explain on the new approach as the result of the same author,
> Matthew, having correlated the material of both types.

Brian

If 200 and 202 are alike because both have been redacted by Matthew, then
according to your approach 201 and 202 are alike for exactly the same
reason. How then do you account for 102 and 202 being alike, when according
to your approach 202 must have been redacted by Luke!

... This seems to be totally confusing to me. It is true that 202 words are the same in both Matthew s Gospel and Luke s Gospel (by definition), but that

Message 15 of 24
, Jan 5, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson wrote in reply to Dave Gentile:

> I understand you to mean that correlating the (102 + 202) words with the
> 200 words does not entail comparing Matthew's words with Matthew's
> words. For this to be true, however, none of the 202 words in (102 +
> 202) can be Matthew's words. Yet, by definition of 202, all 202 words
> are the same words in Matthew and Luke, and therefore are Matthew's
> words.

This seems to be totally confusing to me. It is true that 202 words are the
same in both Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel (by definition), but that
doesn't mean they are therefore Matthew's words, since Matthew could have
got these words from any number of different places, including for example
the LT. It appears to me that you are confusing yourself and everybody else
by using terms such as "Matthew's words" when all you really mean is "words
in Matthew's Gospel".

> On some documentary hypotheses, (for instance the Farrer
> Hypothesis) Luke actually took these words from Matthew! I do not
> understand why you think that 202 words in Luke are not 202 words in
> Matthew.

I see no problem with this. Dave Gentile is fully aware that they are both
in Luke and Matthew. He's just confused by your use of terms such as
"Matthew's words" (see above).

> If they are, then you are comparing a combination of non-
> Matthean and Matthean words also in Luke, with words in Matthew only.

Let me here add a plea that in future no-one uses terms like "Matthean
words" or "Matthew's words" if what is actually meant is "words in Matthew"
or "words in Matthew's Gospel".

> >
> >On the LTH, for example, the words in 102+202 are either Luke's words,
> >or LT words.

Here I think Dave means "words added by Luke" or "words taken from the LT".
If so, then his meaning seems perfectly clear.

> >
> It seems to me that you are still confused. They are either Luke's words
> or Matthew's words or LT words. 202 words are necessarily in Matthew, by
> definition of "202". Every single 202 word was in Matthew, according to
> the LTH.

If the LTH assumes that Luke and Matthew did not use each others work in any
way, then either 202 contains words taken from the LT, or exactly the same
changes made independently by both Matthew and Luke (possible, but very
unlikely). However, it is impossible on the LTH for any words in 202 to be
either "Luke's words" or "Matthew's words" (meaning created by Luke and
Matthew) except for identical chance changes.

Finally, what do you mean by the last sentence? Not only WERE the 202 words
in Matthew, but they still ARE, and are so by definition, completely
independently of any hypothesis.

David Inglis wrote -- ... Dave, 201 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Mt having redacted the wording of material found in the double

Message 16 of 24
, Jan 6, 2002

0 Attachment

David Inglis wrote --

>
>If 200 and 202 are alike because both have been redacted by Matthew,
>then according to your approach 201 and 202 are alike for exactly the
>same reason.
>

Dave,

201 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Mt having
redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
omitted by Luke (so producing 201 words) or included by Luke (so
producing 202 words).

>
>How then do you account for 102 and 202 being alike, when according to
>your approach 202 must have been redacted by Luke!
>

By exactly the same line of reasoning. "102" is simply "201" in reverse,
that is with Mt and Lk interchanged. Just interchange Mt and Lk
throughout my previous sentence above. The result is --

102 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Lk having
redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
omitted by Matthew (so producing 102 words) or included by Matthew (so
producing 202 words).

The two statements are symmetrical in Mt and Lk. Where is the problem in
either of them? I really do not see any difficulty.

>
>I am comparing Matthew to Luke, plain and simple. I am not comparing
>Matthew's words to Matthew's words in any way. On the LTH, for example,
>the words in 102+202 are either Luke's words, or LT words. 200 is
>either Matthew's words, or LT's words.
>

Brian Wilson replied to Dave Gentile --

>
>I understand you to mean that correlating the (102 + 202) words with
>the 200 words does not entail comparing Matthew's words with Matthew's
>words. For this to be true, however, none of the 202 words in (102 +
>202) can be Matthew's words. Yet, by definition of 202, all 202 words
>are the same words in Matthew and Luke, and therefore are Matthew's
>words. On some documentary hypotheses, (for instance the Farrer
>Hypothesis) Luke actually took these words from Matthew! I do not
>understand why you think that 202 words in Luke are not 202 words in
>Matthew. If they are, then you are comparing a combination of non-
>Matthean and Matthean words also in Luke, with words in Matthew only.
>

Dave Inglis comments on Brian Wilson's reply --

>
>It appears to me that you are confusing yourself and everybody else by
>using terms such as "Matthew's words" when all you really mean is
>words in Matthew's Gospel".
>

Dave,
Thanks for pointing out what now seems to me to have been my mis-
understanding. I understood Dave Gentile's phrase "Matthew's words"
(quoted above) to mean simply words in Matthew, and I used his phrase in
this sense in my reply to echo what I thought he meant. If, in fact, he
did not mean this, but meant rather "words supplied by Matthew in his
redaction of his source material" then I would suggest Dave Gentile
should have used a phrase such as "words supplied by Matthew" to make
his meaning clearer.

May I make a plea that anyone who wants to refer to words supplied by
Matthew as he redacted his source material should take care not to use
the ambiguous phrase "Matthew's words"? Something like "words supplied
by Matthew" would perhaps be appropriate.

Brian Wilson continued to Dave Gentile --

>
>Every single 202 word was in Matthew, according to the LTH.
>

Dave Inglis commented on this --

>
>Finally, what do you mean by the last sentence? Not only WERE the 202
>words in Matthew, but they still ARE, and are so by definition,
>completely independently of any hypothesis.
>

What I said is fully consistent with what you say. I meant that,
according to the LTH, at the moment in the past when both Mt and Lk had
both been written by having independently selected material from the LT,
then every single 202 word was in Matthew. If the 202 words ARE in
Matthew now, then they WERE in Matthew at that time.

Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Dave Inglis comments -- ... Dave, On the contrary, the statement is falsifiable. I understand that the data for Pi - Omega has been

Message 18 of 24
, Jan 6, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson wrote --

>
>(Statement 2) A correlation shows a significant negative only if either
>(1) the two categories do not include the same gospel (for example,
>120/112), or (2) one category includes all three synoptists, and the
>other only Luke, or (3) one category includes Matthew and Mark but not
>Luke, and the other includes Mark and Luke but not Matthew.
>

Dave Inglis comments --

>
>This statement is undeniably true, because it's been constructed that
>way.
>

Dave,
On the contrary, the statement is falsifiable. I understand that
the data for Pi - Omega has been collated, and the full results may be
available soon. If these were to produce a negative correlation for,
say, 220-202, then this would be against all three conditions given
above. Dozens of other possible falsifications could be cited for
Statement 2, and also for Statement 1.

>
>All current significant negatives meet one of the three conditions
>described here.
>

I agree. That was what I intended.

>
>However, there are many other pairings of two categories that meet
>one of these conditions that do not have negative results
>

which is precisely why I stated the three conditions. I try not to write
nonsense.

>
>so Statement (2) cannot be used to predict any results
>

Your argument cannot be valid since I have already predicted that
220-202 will not be a significant negative when the full results are
available. Many other such predictions can be made.

>
>It's like saying that all owls are birds. A true statement, but it
>doesn't help determine whether mice or salmon are birds.
>

Since your simile refers to a false statement, the statement is
presumably nothing like saying that all owls are birds.

>
>However, Brian then explains the 3 cases above as follows:
>>
>> Case (1) is accounted for by supposing that two different styles have
>> been imposed by two synoptists redacting differently, and case (2) by
>> supposing that the wording present in all three synoptists would be
>>in words significantly different from Luke's style since they would be
>> words common to the styles of all three and therefore lack many of
>>the distinguishing words in Luke, whereas the words in Luke only would
>>have retained the words of Luke's style, this having the same effect
>>as one category having been redacted by one synoptist, and the other
>>having been redacted by another, and case (3) by supposing that the
>>difference between the words of each category would have been the
>>difference between the style of Matthew and the style of Mark, and
>>that this would have had the same effect as one synoptist having
>>redacted one category of material, and another synoptist having
>>redacted the other.
>
>I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
>symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists.
>

The observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the three
synoptists. So there is no basis for your expectation.

>
>So, taking just case (2) for now I would expect to see the same effect
>for each of Matthew and Mark as well.
>

Since the observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the
three synoptists, there is no reason for you to expect any such thing,
or any of the other things you go on to consider (on which I will not
bother to comment further, since the same argument applies to every one
of them).

>
>Without these explanations I find Brian's hypothesis full of holes.
>

The metaphorical holes would seem to have disappeared.

>
>It is incapable of being falsified currently because it has been
>defined specifically to match just the current set of significant
>positive and negative results
>

On the contrary it is not unfalsifiable since, as I have already shown
above, the new approach can be falsified in one fell swoop by the full
results about to be released.

I am still of the view that it is very feasible that Matthew and Luke
have edited their source material so heavily that it is impossible to
discern the style of any source material they had in common. If we
assume the 2DH, they both used Mk, and hypothetical Q. If we did not
have Mk, however, we would not be able significantly to reconstruct the
style of Mk from Mt and Lk. Moreover, assuming Q existed, all we have
for certain that was in Q are the agreements of wording between Mt and
Lk in "minimal Q" in the double tradition. Just as we cannot reconstruct
the style of Mark from Matthew and Luke, so we cannot reconstruct the
style of Q from Matthew and Luke. Some scholars who staunchly affirm the
2DH, explicitly affirm that it is impossible to determine the style of
Q, if it existed. I would suggest, therefore, we should definitely not
be assuming that the observed correlations can be used to check the
existence of documentary sources of the synoptic gospels. My view is
that we should not be thinking in terms of using the observed
correlations to determine the supposed effect of the styles of authors
of sources of the synoptic gospels. Rather we should be using the
observed correlations, together with a synoptic documentary hypothesis,
to understand more fully how each synoptist has redacted the sources
posited on that documentary hypothesis. For instance, if we advocate
the 2DH, then the correlations should be used to understand more fully
how Mt and Lk redacted Mk, and how they redacted Q. This should enable a
deeper understanding, of course, of the approach of each synoptist to
his source material, and therefore provide greater insights into the way
of thinking of each synoptist. In a nut-shell, I see the observed
correlations as a valuable tool for redaction critics, but of no use to
source critics.

... Yes, the two statements are symmetrical, but they are mutually inconsistent. You have or included by Luke (so producing 202 words) and or included by

Message 19 of 24
, Jan 6, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson wrote:

> David Inglis wrote --
> >
> >If 200 and 202 are alike because both have been redacted by Matthew,
> >then according to your approach 201 and 202 are alike for exactly the
> >same reason.
> >
> Dave,
>
> 201 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Mt having
> redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
> omitted by Luke (so producing 201 words) or included by Luke (so
> producing 202 words).
> >
> >How then do you account for 102 and 202 being alike, when according to
> >your approach 202 must have been redacted by Luke!
> >
> By exactly the same line of reasoning. "102" is simply "201" in reverse,
> that is with Mt and Lk interchanged. Just interchange Mt and Lk
> throughout my previous sentence above. The result is --
>
> 102 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Lk having
> redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
> omitted by Matthew (so producing 102 words) or included by Matthew (so
> producing 202 words).
>
> The two statements are symmetrical in Mt and Lk. Where is the problem in
> either of them? I really do not see any difficulty.
>

Yes, the two statements are symmetrical, but they are mutually inconsistent.
You have "or included by Luke (so producing 202 words)" and "or included by
Matthew (so producing 202 words)". This is impossible! Luke and Matthew
cannot together have created 202, and I have no clue as to why you think
that they can. Either 202 came from a different source (e.g. the LT), in
which case neither Luke nor Matthew redacted it, or it one created/redacted
it and the other copied that wording. Perhaps Dave Gentile or someone else
can point out a flaw in my reasoning, because I can't.

... Here s the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet the current results, because you are ignoring case (2) WRT Matthew and Mark. Case (2)

Message 20 of 24
, Jan 6, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson wrote:

> >>
> >> Case (1) is accounted for by supposing that two different styles have
> >> been imposed by two synoptists redacting differently, and case (2) by
> >> supposing that the wording present in all three synoptists would be
> >>in words significantly different from Luke's style since they would be
> >> words common to the styles of all three and therefore lack many of
> >>the distinguishing words in Luke, whereas the words in Luke only would
> >>have retained the words of Luke's style, this having the same effect
> >>as one category having been redacted by one synoptist, and the other
> >>having been redacted by another, and case (3) by supposing that the
> >>difference between the words of each category would have been the
> >>difference between the style of Matthew and the style of Mark, and
> >>that this would have had the same effect as one synoptist having
> >>redacted one category of material, and another synoptist having
> >>redacted the other.
> >
> >I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
> >symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists.
> >
> The observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the three
> synoptists. So there is no basis for your expectation.

Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet the
current results, because you are ignoring case (2) WRT Matthew and Mark.
Case (2) above currently works only for Luke, and doesn't work for Matthew
or Mark. Unless you extend your theory to include Matthew and Mark here,
then it is incomplete, i.e. "full of holes".

Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, I understand you to mean that generally you do not find my new approach logical, although you give no reasons for this. ...

Message 21 of 24
, Jan 7, 2002

0 Attachment

Dave Gentile wrote --

>
>Your reasoning does not make logical sense to me.
>

Dave,
I understand you to mean that generally you do not find my new
approach logical, although you give no reasons for this.

>
>Let's take a hypothesis where 202 was not written by Matthew, say LTH
>or 2ST.
>

Fine. Let us suppose the LTH -- that each synoptist independently used
the common source (call it "LT" for present purposes) to form his
gospel, redacting the wording of the LT material he used. 202 words are
defined as the same words appearing in Mt and Lk in double tradition
passages. On the LTH, all the passages containing these words were in
the LT. They are material that Mt and Lk independently chose to use from
the LT but which Mk chose to omit.

>
>The only way Matthew can "imprint his style" on 202 is by selecting
>words.
>

On the LTH, if Lk redacted more strongly than Mt, and Mt more strongly
than Mk, the 202 words would tend to be strongly in Luke's style and
fairly strongly in Matthew's style, and to some extent still in the
style of LT (and , to a lesser extent, in the style of Mark).

>
>Matthew can not have authored any of 202, but by favoring some words
>over others, he could leave his mark.
>

The fact that he retained them from LT suggests that the words may
indicate his style to some extent.

>
>In that case 102 would contain words Matthew disfavored.
>

No. The argument is not valid. I may not have a large new Mercedes-Benz
limousine on my drive, but that does not mean I would dis-favour having
one! If 102 are words of which a significant proportion were LT words
that Mt omitted but Lk retained, then they could still have been words
that Mt favoured. He may have omitted phrases containing these words
because of their meaning, irrespective of whether they consisted of
words that he would, or would not, have used when writing in his own
style. In other words, his intention may simply have been to abbreviate
LT material. Of course, other 102 words could have been supplied by
Luke. On the LTH, Luke redacted his LT source material more heavily than
Mt, and even more heavily than Mk. So it is likely that some 102 words
were supplied by Lk. Insofar as the 102 words are words omitted by Mt
but retained by Lk from LT, they may indicate something of the style of
the common source -- LT. Insofar, however, that 102 words were supplied
by Lk and therefore not taken from LT, they may indicate something of
the style of Luke. I think your argument above is therefore not valid.
For if Mt omitted a significant proportion of the 102 words from LT, it
does not follow at all that they were words he would not have used when
writing in his own style. A significant proportion of them, therefore,
may be words that Mt did not disfavour. Generally, the words of 102
would indicate to some extent the style of Luke, and to some extent the
style of LT, but they are not necessarily words that Mt disfavoured.

>
>and some Luke additions.
>

Yes. As I have suggested, Luke probably added some of the 102 words
which are therefore an indication of his style. Even those he took from
LT (words that Mt omitted), would be something of an indication of his
style.

>
>By adding 102+202 together, there is no possible means for Matthew to
>imprint a style on the joint category.
>

I understand you to mean two completely separate things -- (1) that the
style of Mt could not be indicated by 102 words, and (2) that the style
of Mt could not be indicated by 202 words. In the case of (1), I would
say that the 102 words can give no positive indication of the style of
Mt, but I would want to add that they are not necessarily words that Mt
would disfavour. I disagree with (2), however, since 202 words are LT
words fairly strongly redacted by Mt, and would therefore probably give
some indication of the style of Mt.

>
>Any hint of Matthew's favoritism is obliterated by including both
>categories.
>

No. This is wrong. The words of 202 would carry some indication of
"Matthew's favoritism" because they are the result of Mt having fairly
strongly redacted the wording of LT material.

We should deal separately with each category. The 202 words were all
words from LT. Some 102 words were words that Mt omitted from LT and
that Lk retained, but other 102 words were supplied by Lk and were
therefore not LT words.

>
>but there is no way for Matthew's favoritism of words to show up here.
>

I disagree, because Mt fairly strong redacted the wording of LT material
he used, and therefore 202 words would indicate the style of Mt to some
extent.

My basic assumption is that if two different HHBC categories tend to
prefer the same words, there is a good chance that the material
containing them was redacted by the same synoptist. Conversely, if two
different categories tend to prefer different words, there is a good
chance that the material containing them was redacted by different
synoptists. I would suggest that this hypothesis is sufficient to
account easily for all the observed significant correlations between
HHBC categories, and makes very good sense of the results of the
Principle Component Analysis and the Average Linkage Cluster TREE
Analysis. I find this new approach fully consistent with the LTH.

Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Dave Inglis replied -- ... Dave, As a matter of fact you are wrong. That is not what happened. I know, because I was the one who

Message 22 of 24
, Jan 7, 2002

0 Attachment

Brian Wilson wrote --

>
>Case (1) is accounted for by supposing that two different styles have
>been imposed by two synoptists redacting differently, and case (2) by
>supposing that the wording present in all three synoptists would be
>in words significantly different from Luke's style since they would be
>words common to the styles of all three and therefore lack many of
>the distinguishing words in Luke, whereas the words in Luke only would
>have retained the words of Luke's style, this having the same effect
>as one category having been redacted by one synoptist, and the other
>having been redacted by another, and case (3) by supposing that the
>difference between the words of each category would have been the
>difference between the style of Matthew and the style of Mark, and
>that this would have had the same effect as one synoptist having
>redacted one category of material, and another synoptist having
>redacted the other.
>

Dave Inglis replied --

>Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet
>the current results
>

Dave,
As a matter of fact you are wrong. That is not what happened. I
know, because I was the one who formulated the hypothesis. It was
inspired by using my computer to move around columns and rows of entries
in my own table of correlations results. In one re-arrangement I was
surprised to find only three "squares" of entries. Most re-arrangements
were much more complicated. These three squares correspond to the three
cases I list. Even so, it does not matter two cents how a hypothesis is
produced. Any hypothesis necessarily goes beyond any data for which it
accounts. What matters is whether the hypothesis works. This one does.

>
>because you are ignoring case (2) WRT Matthew and Mark. Case (2) above
>currently works only for Luke, and doesn't work for Matthew or Mark.
>

Yes. It is supposed to work only for Luke. In fact, it works very well
for Luke.

>
>Unless you extend your theory to include Matthew and Mark here, then it
>is incomplete, i.e. "full of holes".
>

If it works, which it does, then it is complete. There is no need to
extend a hypothesis that works. To do so, in fact, would contravene
Occam's Razor.

pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

>
>I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
>symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists.
>

Brian Wilson responded --

>
>The observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the three
>synoptists. So there is no basis for your expectation.
>

Dave Inglis now replies --

>
>Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet the
>current results, because you are ignoring case (2) WRT Matthew and
>Mark. Case (2) above currently works only for Luke, and doesn't work
>for Matthew or Mark.
>

>
>Case (1) is accounted for by supposing that two different styles have
>been imposed by two synoptists redacting differently, and case (2) by
>supposing that the wording present in all three synoptists would be
>in words significantly different from Luke's style since they would be
>words common to the styles of all three and therefore lack many of
>the distinguishing words in Luke, whereas the words in Luke only would
>have retained the words of Luke's style, this having the same effect
>as one category having been redacted by one synoptist, and the other
>having been redacted by another, and case (3) by supposing that the
>difference between the words of each category would have been the
>difference between the style of Matthew and the style of Mark, and
>that this would have had the same effect as one synoptist having
>redacted one category of material, and another synoptist having
>redacted the other.
>

Dave Inglis responded --

>
>I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
>symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists.
>

Brian Wilson answered --

>
>The observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the three
>synoptists. So there is no basis for your expectation.
>

Dave Inglis now replies --

>
>Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet
>the current results
>

Dave,
As a matter of fact you are wrong. That is not what happened. I
know, because I was the one who formulated the hypothesis. It was
inspired by using my computer to move around columns and rows of entries
in my own table of correlations results. In one re-arrangement I was
surprised to find only three "squares" of entries. Most re-arrangements
were much more complicated. Also, I noticed, the three squares
corresponded to the first three groups in the Average Linkage Cluster
TREE Procedure results. The three Cases were inspired by these two
observations apparently pointing to a tri-partite division. Even so, it
does not matter two cents how a hypothesis is produced. Any hypothesis
necessarily goes beyond any data for which it accounts. The
psychological route by which it is reached is irrelevant. What matters
is whether the hypothesis works. This one does.

>
>because you are ignoring case (2) WRT Matthew and Mark. Case (2) above
>currently works only for Luke, and doesn't work for Matthew or Mark.
>

Yes. Case 2 is supposed to work only for Luke. In fact, it works very
well for Luke. That's fine.

>
>Unless you extend your theory to include Matthew and Mark here, then it
>is incomplete, i.e. "full of holes".
>

If it works, which it does, then it is complete. There is no need to
extend a hypothesis that works. To do so, in fact, would contravene
Occam's Razor.

I think you should take note of the asymmetry of the Average Linkage
Cluster TREE Procedure results, and also of the asymmetry of the
Principle Component Analysis results, as well as the obvious asymmetry
in the table of significant positive and significant negative results.
The prevalent asymmetry of the observed results corresponds, in my view,
to the idea that Lk redacted more heavily than Matthew, and Matthew more
heavily than Mark, which accounts for the three Cases described above.